Posted on 03/18/2002 10:15:30 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:32:54 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Yep -- along with the ditzy doctor that wouldn't prescribe the meds for her that had proven to work before.
Well, it seems the the meaning of "controlling" has changed since your day.
Maybe... but she was an *adult* woman. If she could carefully plan and execute the drowning of five kids, she should also be smart enough to figure out how to buy a bus ticket and get out of there if "controlling" were the real issue.
Think about this. Had he done the killing would there be any outcry of "poor Rusty", she should have known he had emotional problems instead of allowing herself to get pregnant and dumping this additional burden on him.
Yepper. And it's an ugly definition that deliberately degrades bright and caring women who *do* decide to stay home and raise their children, including those who, *gasp,* decide to "homeschool."
yes, sadly the meaning of decency, responsibility, family and many others have changed also.
Wait a minute here. We know that Rusty Yates followed a religious preacher who taught that women were evil and should be subservient to men. We know that he impregnated Andrea after a suicide attempt, even though the doctors told him it was a bad idea. We know that he allowed his wife a grand total of three hours a week to himself, while he had plenty of time to ride his bike, go to the gym, and take care of his hobbies. We know that he sold their first house over his wife's objections and had them move into a converted bus to "simplify" their lives. We know that he limited her family's access to her. Why are you so quick to judge her family as abusers, when you won't even admit that he is a control freak? How in the world you can blame them, and not him, is beyond me.
That is true. However if you believe that giving your wife time to herself only every Thursday from 6-9 PM is not controlling maybe you ought to rethink. How about requiring her to have natural childbirth five times in order to humble herself...or not only requiring her to homeschool all of the children but moving the family out to a bus so that they live a 'simpler life'. In the meantime, your wife starts getting clumps in her hair and she starts smelling...but you still go to the gym and bike a few times a week.
Andrea Yates is guilty of murder, no matter what her husband did, but I do think he should be held accountable for neglect.
I have no problem with that if that's the case. But all this talk about "poor Andrea....he was nothing but a controlling pig" is getting a little thick. This isn't the 1800's or even the 1950's for that matter. If she was unable to get out of an unreasonable situation due to mental problems she had family, friends and plenty of support groups available to help. Did he refuse her medication? Stop her in anyway from receiving help from any source? I don't know all the facts in the case, I didn't hear all the evidence, perhaps you can offer proof that he is the monster you claim him to be.
Well, what about that crazed street preacher, whose name is I think Woroniecki? I've only read one article about him, where else, here of course and it said that it was she who followed him and exchanged letters with him. The apocalyptic stuff about satan, sin and eternal damnation for anyone who doesn't subscribe to Woroniecki's interpretation of the Holy Book originated from him, I believe (There was, believe it or not, one defender of this preacher nutcake here on FR a couple of days ago responding to this article!)
I did too, right from the 1st time I laid eyes on him. Call it a gut "feeling" whatever, but I'm usually on target
From everything I've read, Andrea also followed this religious preacher who lived in that same bus with his wife and 6 kids (but they didn't kill their kids). I don't know why they were attracted to such a religion but apparently both were and even converted to it. I believe I read somewhere that Andrea was raised Catholic, maybe not church-going --I don't know. Another poster the other day pointed out that often mentally ill people seek each other out ---where Andrea was weak and dependent and mentally ill, she was atrracted to someone strong, in control and mentally ill. I see no other reason for him to have stayed with her --a normal man would have divorced Andrea (or never married her in the first place), taken the kids and found someone a little more normal --if Rusty was in a normal frame of mine --yes he would have seen this woman was no wife and no mother.
Yes --I agree. Many women leave marriages just for that reason --they don't enjoy being with a control freak. No way does a bad marriage justify what she did. She also carried out the act in a very planned out, methodical, deliberate way. I guess there are lessons that can be learned ---if any of us believe a loved one is in a harmful situation, we shouldn't be like her family and just let it go on. Also mental help is in a bad state in this country for the most part.
"When I first saw this guy, I thought his behavior was odd and I made my thoughts clear on this. There were those who came down hard on me for it. I had a feeling about this punk right from the start, he has proven me to be right."
Count me in too. I thought he was a nutcase from the getgo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.